Seite - 188 - in Biodiversity and Health in the Face of Climate Change

188 Contact with the biodiverse environment was coded as either indirect or direct following Keniger et  al. (2013). Indirect contact “does not require a person to be physically present in nature” (Keniger et  al. 2013, p.  916) and can include viewing nature through a window, and looking at photographs, paintings or motion pictures of nature. Direct contact with nature stipulates that nature, or natural elements, are physically present in the same space as the individual (Keniger et  al. 2013).1 Examples of direct contact include indoor plants, using urban green spaces for edu- cation purposes, reading or having a picnic in the park, doing sports or exercise in a natural setting, gardening and camping. Moderating variables were categorised as either personal (e.g. age, gender, socio- economic status) or contextual (e.g. urbanicity, safety) (Hartig et  al. 2014; Markevych et  al. 2017). Mediators were classified as ‘reducing harm’, ‘restoring capacities’ or ‘building capacities’ according to Markevych et  al. (2017). ‘Reducing harm’ consid- ers the role of the natural environment to reduce exposure to environmental stressors like heat or noise pollution. ‘Restoring capacities’ mediators support renewal of adapted resources that have become depleted through everyday demands, such as attention restoration and stress recovery. ‘Building capacities’ mediators highlight the role of green spaces in strengthening an individual’s capacity to acquire new adaptive resources like fostering physical activity and social cohesion. 9.2.3 Synthesis of  Results To provide a synthesis of results assessing the influence of biodiversity on mental health and well-being, a combined set of 24 studies, drawn from Lovell et  al. (2014) and from our updated review, was utilised. Nine quantitative studies identified in Lovell et  al. (2014) that assessed biodiversity and mental health and well-being relationships were included (Table  9.1). Consequently, 4 studies from Lovell et  al. (2014) with physical health as the outcome were excluded (Huynen et  al. 2004; Poudyal et  al. 2009; Sieswerda et  al. 2001; Tilt et  al. 2007). Also excluded were 4 studies that, according to Lovell et  al. (2014), did not directly assess biodiversity but were included in their analysis nevertheless (Barton et  al. 2009; Curtin 2009; Lemieux et  al. 2012; Pereira et  al. 2005). In this sense our synthesis of results is more critical than Lovell et  al.’s (2014) by including only those studies that consider the biodiversity of the environment in some way. Fifteen of the 16 articles identified in our updated search were included in the synthesis of results. Foo (2016) was excluded from the synthesis of results because it analysed the associations between use of the environment, individual differences in environmental experience, and perceived physical activity, well-being and mental health given a certain level of actual biodiversity instead of an investigation of the influence of biodiversity levels on mental health and well-being. 1 This is a combination of Keniger et  al. (2013) ‘incidental’ and ‘intentional’ interaction types as both describe being in the presence of nature. M. R. Marselle et al.